Restoration defended
Sir: I cannot allow Mr Stamp's attack on the restoration of the Queen's House to go unchallenged (Restoration farce, 9 June). Not only are his assumptions mistaken but he is wrong on several points of detail. He belongs to a caucus of architectural man- darins who are interested in nothing but the building. In place of the present scheme what vision does he offer us? Merely a repetition of what was there before. Anyone familiar with the House as it was will know how ill-suited it was to traditional museum displays. It looked bare and forlorn, neither museum nor palace, but an unsatisfactory compromise between the two. No doubt it would please your critic and his handful of elitist friends to keep the building as a shrine to classical architecture, but that is a luxury we cannot afford. Visitors come to see things as well as buildings. The challenge for anyone wishing to restore the House is how to bring to life the spirit of the people and the time which inspired it. The present restora- tion makes a brave attempt to do that. Mr Stamp does not even start.
The impression he creates that the res- toration has been a disaster is built up through a series of detailed criticisms and jibes. The decision to retain the sash windows of circa 1700 was not taken on financial grounds, but because to strip back the fabric so radically would have been construed as vandalism. The colour schemes are based on extensive sampling as well as the evidence of contemporary records. Paint surfaces have been matched to samples using historic tinting pigments. The candelabra in the hall are used only for evening functions and are normally re- moved during the day. The majority of the rooms are lit by girandoles and candles- ticks, not by sconces; the black boxes behind the latter do not look so different from the wooden backboards to which they would have been attached.
The guidebooks and postcards, now on sale, were delayed to enable post-rest- oration photography to be done. Consulta- tion took place with a range of specialists, including some of the luminaries listed by Mr Stamp, but one scholar became noto- rious for standing us up. The use of rush matting is absolutely correct, as a glance at almost any early 17th-century whole-length portrait would demonstrate.
As for soaking up any plonk, I am happy to report that food and drink are banned in the state rooms. The House, after all, was made for entertainment and it would be sad if no pleasure was to be had there.
Richard Ormond
Director, National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, London SE10
Previous page
